High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.I.T. Meerut v. M/S Naresh Chand & Sons - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 134 of 1988  RD-AH 1628 (6 December 2004)
I.T.R. No.134 of 1988
CIT, Meerut v. M/s. Naresh Chand & Sons, Roorkee.
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court.
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the AAC deleting the addition of Rs. 12,781/- share from M/s. Ambika Khandsari Udyog on behalf of M/s Naresh Chand Mohit Kumar, Rs. 987/- as interest received by M/s Vibha Devi Rohit Kumar from M/s Ashoka Rice Mills Rs. 2343/- as interest received by M/s Vibha Devi Rohit Kumar from M/s Kedar Nath Bishan Lal and Rs. 24,104/- share from M/s. Kedar Nath Bishan Lal Corpn. On behalf of M/s Vibha Devi Rohit Kumar?"
The reference relates to the Assessment year 1981-82.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:
The respondent is a Hindi Undivided Family. It had claimed partial partition in the accounting period relevant to the Assessment Year 1977-78 and had accordingly claimed that the following income did not belong to it but to separate members of the family.
"i) Share income of M/s Naresh Chand Mohit Kumar
in the firm M/s. Ambika Khandsari Udyog Rs. 12, 781/-
ii) Income of Vibha Devi Rohit Kumar in the firm
M/s Kedar Nath Bishan Lal Corporation. Rs. 24,104/-
iii) Interest received by Vibha Devi Rohit Kumar in
the firm M/s Kedar Nath Bishan Lal Rs. 2,343/-
iv) Interest received by Vibha Devi Rohit Kumar
from M/s Ashoka Rice Mills. Rs. 987/-"
The above claims of the respondent was not accepted by the Income Tax Officer. He, accordingly, included the aforementioned income in the assessment of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who delected the addition by observing that the claim of partial partition has already been accepted which order has been upheld by the Tribunal.
We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
It is agreed between the parties that the claim of partial partition has been upheld by this Court in ITR No. 258 of 1982 decided on 3rd September, 2003.
In view of the agreement between the parties we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly upheld the order of the Assistant Appellant Commissioner deleting the addition of the income of various members of the family.
We, accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.